I will say it for an umptienth time - Bulgarian textbooks still state that we are mostly Slavs.
Bulgarian books, it's all about them the glorious steppe bulgars. Thracians and slavs are barely mentionned. Documentaries are made lately, saying we are bulgars, shown on public tv. Showing how they are in search of "our bulgar origin", away in asia. Don't make me put link for everybody to see that.
But you, being the profound turk Thracian, are unware of that.
Thracians do not have any turk origin, that's very certain! You, being an obvious türk, are quite unaware of who you really are! You can't even say the actual origin of the Bulgars - theoretical, hypothetical or what ever.. you name it. But you still know that your origin is such?!
Actually, I would be highly disappointed if you were Bulgar. That is the utmost disgrace to their name.
This will the last thing to pretend, being asiatic Bulgar.. when definately I'm not! That should be the disgrace, to deny my factual origin and say I am asian!
Obviously you havent researched the matter well because: Pomaks are like any other Bulgarian, the only difference is they are islamic.
So if they desend from the Thracians, so do the other Bulgarians. Bulgarian sounds like a cross between Slavic (mainly the lexic) and Balkanic (mainly the grammer, the Serbs say they heareonly -tata, -to, -te, because of the balkanic grammer).
I am an Abazian from Turkey.
Pomaks are related to the Thracians.
Bulgarians are related to the Slavs and that ethnicity you know. ;D
Last Edit: Sept 17, 2009 5:27:06 GMT -5 by Kibitzer
Yeps with you guys it's always ata or eta at the end. In Serbian grammar it changes according to context with a lot of variations eg puska, pusku, puski, puskom, puske etc.
You're speaking of cases, puska vs puskata is the definite and undefinite article of a noun. Bulgarian has pretty much lost its original noun declensions, but it has developed a definite article of nouns which Serbian lacks. In other words, there can never be "the gun" in Serbian, rather the context decides whether we're dealing with a specific or unspecific object -- it's more open to interpretation. Seen from this perspective, the Serbian language is gramatically closer to other Slavic languages while Bulgarian certainly sets itself apart in the Slavic linguistic family tree.
Last Edit: Sept 18, 2009 15:44:29 GMT -5 by donnie
Post by Caslav Klonimirovic on Sept 18, 2009 23:29:06 GMT -5
Yep the word for noun declensions in Serbian is Padezi. Did Bulgarian actually loose its noun declensions? When did this happen? I think I've read that noun declensions actually increased over time with Serbian/Croatian. Also I think old church slavonic uses Bulgarian grammar?
Serbian declension (Serbian: deklinacija) describes the declension, or system of grammatically-determined modifications, in nouns, adjectives, pronouns and numerals in the Serbian language. There is a system of 7 cases (nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, vocative, locative and instrumental) in Serbian.
Post by Novi Pazar on Sept 19, 2009 0:05:22 GMT -5
"Bulgars are always gloryfied, the rest do not exists - the locals vapourized.. the slavs were lazy, dumb fvckers.. So Bulgarian history books say we are steppe-Bulgars."
Ofcourse, l'll tell you something and l hope ruse and ioan reads this:
The Bulgars practised polygamy — their Boyards (princes) had whole harems; among the Southern Slavs polygamy was very rare. Bulgarian justice was barbarous in the extreme. If one of the boyards rebelled and was defeated, then not only was he deprived of his life and possessions, but his children and all his kinsfolk were put to death; among the Southern Slavs the penalties were humane, and sentence had to be passed by the assembly. The Bulgars lived in war and for war; the Southern Slavs only went to war when they were attacked. The war customs of the Bulgars were cruel ; they made the skulls of their con- quered enemies into goblets from which they quaffed wine at their banquets; the Southern Slavs were mag- nanimous to their foes both during and after the war.
I read Ruse saying that the Bulgars were scientists etc.....the Bulgars were Nomads, period!.
The Bulgars practised polygamy — their Boyards (princes) had whole harems; among the Southern Slavs polygamy was very rare.
Bollocks. Both Slavs and Bulgars were polygamous. That disappeared with the acceptance of Christianity as an official religion.
If one of the boyards rebelled and was defeated, then not only was he deprived of his life and possessions, but his children and all his kinsfolk were put to death; among the Southern Slavs the penalties were humane, and sentence had to be passed by the assembly.
LMAO, Novi the pan-slavic utopist has spoken. Anyway, where did you get this info from?
The Bulgars lived in war and for war; the Southern Slavs only went to war when they were attacked.
Another crap. Would you tell me then what were the reasons for the numerous attacks and sieges of Solun, let's say, by the Slavs? Byzantines destroyed their pastry shops?
As for the skull - there is one recorded case - when Krum defeated Niciphorus II. Such ritual is recorded also among Scythians,Celts, Pechenegs, Lombards, etc. It is called orendism and was believed that the power of the person it belonged to was transfered to the person who drank from it. Please try to remember this, do not post it in the next five years as it happens to any info that goes outside the boundaries of the Highduke's site you use as a source and shamelessly present as if you have gone to libraries to collect this information. Thank you.
read Ruse saying that the Bulgars were scientists etc.....the Bulgars were Nomads, period!.
And these nomads have established several states bearing their name centuries before the appearance of any Slavic state? Bug off, Novi.
Yep the word for noun declensions in Serbian is Padezi. Did Bulgarian actually loose its noun declensions?
Yes. There are only some few remnants left, but overall Bulgarian lost its noun declension entirely.
Also I think old church slavonic uses Bulgarian grammar?
That would be the old Bulgarian dialect as spoken around Thessaloniki in the 800s, before the language lost its noun declension.
When did this happen?
I'm not sure, but it's probably been a gradual process, as in all other languages which have gradually lost some/many/all of their cases over the corse of history.
I think I've read that noun declensions actually increased over time with Serbian/Croatian.
No, it has just (like most Slavic languages) preserved more of the Indoeuropean cases than most other IE languages. It is speculated that proto-Indoeuropean had some eight or maybe even nine cases (the ninth might've been allative). Serbo-Croatian (minus dialects like Torlak) has preserved seven of these, excluding ablative and the speculated allative.
Most other IE languages have either had a partial or complete loss of noun declensions. English for instance is also a language which has essentially lost all of its noun declensions and overall is a little inflected language. Most languages seek simplification gramatically speaking, though in Bulgarian although there has been a loss in noun declensions, the old verb system has been preserved and innovations have been added, making Bulgarian verbs extremely complex.
Post by Caslav Klonimirovic on Sept 20, 2009 23:10:16 GMT -5
OK interesting so now I know that proto Indo-European is said to have many noun declensions and so European languages are said to have lost these over time with English actually having the least by the sounds of it. I don't understand old church slavonic too well (not that I hear it too often) but now I also know that is has even more noun inflections then Serbian & so gramatically it sounds as though it is much closer to Serbian then Bulgarian. Wow. I'm confused now as to how Bulgarian lost its declensions as I kind of assumed that by the time of Cyrill & methodius the native Bulgarian populations would have already been merged & hence the grammar would have been as is much earlier. Can anyone shed more light on how Bulgarian grammar was actually changed then if old church slavonic is actually also considered old Bulgarian? Aparently it was done in a language period labelled the "Middle Bulgarian period," from the 12th to 15th century and influenced essentially by Turkic Bulgar.
Old Bulgarian was the first Slavic language attested in writing. As Slavic linguistic unity lasted into late antiquity, in the oldest manuscripts this language was initially referred to as ÿçûêú ñëîâÿíüñêú, "the Slavic language". In the Middle Bulgarian period this name was gradually replaced by the name ÿçûêú áëúãàðüñêú, the "Bulgarian language". In some cases, the name ÿçûêú áëúãàðüñêú was used not only with regard to the contemporary Middle Bulgarian language of the copyist but also to the period of Old Bulgarian and even to the mission of St. Cyril and St. Methodius in Great Moravia. A most notable example of anachronism is the Service of St. Cyril from Skopje (Ñêîïñêè ìèíåé), a 13th century Middle Bulgarian manuscript from northern Macedonia according to which St. Cyril preached with "Bulgarian" books among the Moravian Slavs. The first mention of the language as the "Bulgarian language" instead of the "Slavonic language" comes in the work of the Greek clergy of the Bulgarian Archbishopric of Ohrid in the 11th century, for example in the Greek hagiography of Saint Clement of Ohrid by Theophylact of Ohrid (late 11th century).
During the Middle Bulgarian period, the language underwent dramatic changes, losing the Old Slavonic case system, but preserving the rich verb system (while the development was exactly the opposite in most other Slavic languages) and developing a definite article. It was influenced by its non-Slavic neighbours in the Balkan linguistic union (mostly grammatically) and later also by Turkish, which was the official language of Ottoman empire in the form of the Ottoman language (an earlier former of Turkish), mostly lexically. As a national revival occurred towards the end of the period of Ottoman rule (mostly during the 19th century), a modern Bulgarian literary language gradually emerged which drew heavily on Russian and Church Slavonic/Old Bulgarian and which later reduced the number of Turkish and other Balkanic loans.